Looks like N851NW is done with the flat-bed refurbishment, and is being ferried nonstop from SIN to ATL today (Sunday 26 May). It is DL9971. Has DL ever had a nonstop SIN-ATL ferry flight on the A332 or any other type before?

They are traveling at Mach .9, so it doesn't seem like they had to pull the power back for that flight. Although the fact that it is a ferry flight means that range is automatically increased from what the aircraft could do in revenue operations.

As long as the aircraft is airworthy and not on a special maintenance ferry permit, the FARs do not prohibit the carrying of revenue passengers provided there are enough flight attendants (1 for every 50 seats) and the flight is dispatched under Part 121 rules.

However, most airlines, per their FAA-approved ops-specs, allow employees to "non-rev" on Part 91 supplemental position ferries (with the captain's approval), even without flight attendants provided they are briefed on the location and operation of the emergency exits. This may or may not apply to international flights.

Quoting trent772 (Reply 15):I disagree, if I'm non-reving on a company airplane from point A to point B and I'm occupying a passenger seat, I'm a passenger, a company employee still but acting as a passenger.

This is correct. The distinction lies in whether the passenger generates any revenue.

Quoting trent772 (Reply 15):I disagree, if I'm non-reving on a company airplane from point A to point B and I'm occupying a passenger seat, I'm a passenger, a company employee still but acting as a passenger.

Correct you are considered a passenger but you are taking the flight "at risk." The same rules do not apply. I can't count the times I've hitched a ride on a MX ferry to get to work as a non-rev. I've been the only one in the back many times.

My opinions do not represent the opinions of my company. They are solely the opinion of the poster.

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 8):They are traveling at Mach .9, so it doesn't seem like they had to pull the power back for that flight. Although the fact that it is a ferry flight means that range is automatically increased from what the aircraft could do in revenue operations.

They were likely flying on a lower cost index- probably around .83 Mach. Notice on the routing they were flying southerly to help ride better tailwinds- that is the reason for the higher groundspeed.

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 22):
Assuming time is not a critical issue, would it have been cheaper to break up the journey into different segments say:

SIN-NRT-LAX-ATLSIN-HNL-ATL

It's wasting a lot of fuel to do it non-stop.

But do you think that putting the gear down a couple times and flying a final approach, followed by taxiing, APU on the ground, engine start, taxi out, takeoff, and climbout (huge gas burning time) would save any?

Being that it was completely empty other than fuel, I doubt there was a cheaper way than to takeoff and fly to ATL nonstop. Being an A-330-200 they probably went right up to FL330-350 even with 18 hours to go.

Umm, it's saving a lot of fuel to do it non-stop! Engines are most efficient at cruise. If you then descend and then take off 2x instead of just 1x, you're probably using 25% more fuel then if you can do it in one shot.

Typically, there are no FA's on Part 91 repositioning flights unless there is an operational need for FA's to be on there. FA's arent required on Part 91 flights so there isnt a need to have them on the flight unless it is absolutely needed.

Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 28):While I agree with the assessment that's its probably cheaper to ferry than make multiple stops, it DOES cost money to carry fuel around that won't be burned for some time. Especially on ULH.

So no...he's not "joking". It's a fair question.

Thanks, that was the question I was getting at, were the penalties for hauling around extra fuel for ULH > the additional costs of landing/take offs etc.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 31):On top of that the extra crews and stopover time? It would have likely costed at least 20,000 to 50,000 extra in fuel to do what you suggsted. Not to mention many thousands of dollars of crew costs.

Yes but you're having to haul that additional fuel to make the ULH non-stop ferry flight. By breaking up the journey you only need to carry the fuel for that particular leg of the journey. What I didn't factor into account were things like crew costs/landing fee etc. Not sure doing ULH would save you that much in fuel...

In any case, I think in this instance, getting the bird back to ATL in the quickest time was the priority and it allows DL to deploy it for a revenue flight quicker - even if breaking the ferry flight back in segments was cheaper.

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 34):Yes but you're having to haul that additional fuel to make the ULH non-stop ferry flight. By breaking up the journey you only need to carry the fuel for that particular leg of the journey. What I didn't factor into account were things like crew costs/landing fee etc. Not sure doing ULH would save you that much in fuel...

You can't be serious.... do you really think a non-stop flight burns more fuel than multiple stops with landings and climb outs?

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 35):You can't be serious.... do you really think a non-stop flight burns more fuel than multiple stops with landings and climb outs?

Yes I am being serious hence my original question

If we are talking about a normal routine mission for the A330 (e.g. a 5000nm), then absolutely, non-stop is a heck of a lot more efficient than breaking down the journey into segments. But this is a ferry flight that is stretching the A330 to the limit in terms of fuel capacity/range (it's 8657 nm !!!). My original question asked would it have been more efficient to break it into 2 or 3 segments, if you broke the journey into 2 segments, that's only 1 additional take-off and 1 additional landing. So not sure how

One of the reasons why SQ for example has had to stop it's non-stop SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX service is because of the nature of the route (ULH) where carrying so much fuel makes the flight marginal. QF could in theory fly LHR-SYD non-stop with a 77L but the cost of the route (i.e. mostly fuel) make the route uneconomic.

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 36):One of the reasons why SQ for example has had to stop it's non-stop SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX service is because of the nature of the route (ULH) where carrying so much fuel makes the flight marginal. QF could in theory fly LHR-SYD non-stop with a 77L but the cost of the route (i.e. mostly fuel) make the route uneconomic.

Surely this has more to do with the yield of revenue from the ticket price? If those flights stopped enroute, the yield would reduce even more because of the cost of the tech stop. I think the problem SQ had was that they couldn't charge more for the price of a seat on the non stop or they'd price themselves above the market.

In terms of the A332 - it's a very capable aeroplane even before being trimmed correct in flight, kept in balance and flown at the best speed for the wing (M.81 from my experience).

I once managed to flight plan it empty LHR-SYD non-stop, with a 2/0 crew basic DOM, using RCF and I think I ditched alternate fuel. 114tonne fuel tanks can take it a long way. The A333...not as capable!

As others have mentioned, employees could theoretically non-rev on the flight with CA approval. I once non-revved on a 777 being repositioned from ATL to DTW. There were two other pilots who were jumpseating on the flight, so there were a total of five people on board.

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 36):One of the reasons why SQ for example has had to stop it's non-stop SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX service is because of the nature of the route (ULH) where carrying so much fuel makes the flight marginal. QF could in theory fly LHR-SYD non-stop with a 77L but the cost of the route (i.e. mostly fuel) make the route uneconomic.

You simply can't compare a revenue flight to a ferry flight, the first one has (or should) a bunch of extra weight because of all the cargo (luggage and cargo), passengers, F/A's, catering (food, drinks,...),... where as the second has minimum weight because they only have 4 pilots, maybe one or two non-rev employees, some food and drinks for the crew and a few pieces of luggage. And there is no reason for airlines to a) Pay more landing fees then they need, b) Use more fuel, c) Take more time and d) Add extra rotations to the landing-gears.

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 36):If we are talking about a normal routine mission for the A330 (e.g. a 5000nm), then absolutely, non-stop is a heck of a lot more efficient than breaking down the journey into segments. But this is a ferry flight that is stretching the A330 to the limit in terms of fuel capacity/range (it's 8657 nm !!!). My original question asked would it have been more efficient to break it into 2 or 3 segments, if you broke the journey into 2 segments, that's only 1 additional take-off and 1 additional landing. So not sure how

Doing it non stop saved many hours of travel time on top of what you suggested, and adding in the extra landings and takeoffs would have burned probably 50,000 pounds more fuel than just fueling up and going non-stop.

You're confusing revenue generation capability on ULR flights versus what is more efficient for the airplane.

Planes use more fuel per mile on ULH flights than on shorter flights, whether there is payload or not. Airplanes burn additional fuel just to tanker fuel, and I think that is the very valid point SYDSpotter is trying to make.

This is magnified on ULH flights. So here we have an A332 which took off on an 18 hour flight with 240,000# of fuel. Lets say they instead planned a stop after 9 hours. Perhaps they would only need 140,000# for the first leg (just rough ballpark numbers). Think about how much extra fuel was burned to carry an extra 100,000 pounds for the first nine hours of that nonstop flight.

I would wager the cost of that extra fuel burn is much more than the cost of an extra set of landing fees or tire wear, etc. There is the point of two departures and climb outs burning more fuel, which is true. But then this is somewhat offset by having two descents at or near flight idle.

At the end of the day Delta decided to fly this nonstop, so there was obviously a reason for it. Perhaps it was the time savings. But blanket statements such as "it saved fuel flying nonstop" when the economics of fuel tankering during ULH are known to show otherwise is not showing the full picture.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 46):This is magnified on ULH flights. So here we have an A332 which took off on an 18 hour flight with 240,000# of fuel. Lets say they instead planned a stop after 9 hours. Perhaps they would only need 140,000# for the first leg (just rough ballpark numbers). Think about how much extra fuel was burned to carry an extra 100,000 pounds for the first nine hours of that nonstop flight.

Stopping, refueling back up again with reserves for the extra leg, taking off, and climbing out again would have easily burned 50,000 additional pounds of fuel on top of what they burned without stopping.

If anyone out there is burning 3.5 hours of fuel during one approach, 2 taxis, and a takeoff...it's time to get new engines.

I'm not particularly familiar with the fuel burn/hr of the 330, but the simple fact is that stopping and refueling and climbing back up again would burn a significant amount more gas than doing it non-stop.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 51):Stopping, refueling back up again with reserves for the extra leg, taking off, and climbing out again would have easily burned 50,000 additional pounds of fuel on top of what they burned without stopping.

An A-330 will burn 5400-7000 kg during its climb depending on gross weight at ISA.

That translates to between 11,900-15,400 pounds. Then consider that a flight idle descent will burn less gas during that portion of flight compared to cruise thrust. As mentioned, this should help offset that 11,900-15,400 pounds. Then there is the matter of carrying (in our example) 100,000 additional pounds for 9 extra hours if you do not stop. This is the equivalent of carrying an Embraer 190 for 9 hours, which is not the case if you make a tech stop.

I'm not sure how you come up with 50,000 pounds, but those numbers seem way off.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 53):
I'm not particularly familiar with the fuel burn/hr of the 330, but the simple fact is that stopping and refueling and climbing back up again would burn a significant amount more gas than doing it non-stop.

I agree with this for short and medium haul flights. Long haul the advantage diminishes and for ULH I believe the pendulum swings the other way. You must consider the additional fuel flow for carrying a tremendous amount of extra weight for a tremendous amount of time.

I'd be interested to see the burn difference with a stop and without a stop. Obviously, without stopping they were able to take a more wind efficient route which was a good ways away from land as well.

For fun, I picked Narita (NRT) and Anchorage (ANC) for possible stops. I listed the total miles for the two one stoppers and the single three stopper and the difference between that and the base distance.

Maybe, someone with access to the A332 planning and performance books can tell us what the block fuel burns with the standard winds for the trip date for each of the suggested trip profiles.

Also, it would be interesting what the crew requirements for each of the suggested possibilities. I guess that crew positioning and logistics would enter into the equation.

It's really not that complicated. This was a ferry flight returning the Aircraft back into revenue service after maintenance, it's important to do that as soon as possible so it can start making, er revenue again.

There is no revenue from a ferry flight obviously, it is just a price of doing business and you want to get it over with as quick as possible so, to reiterate you can get the jet back in the air with passengers making money Asap.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 57):It's really not that complicated. This was a ferry flight returning the Aircraft back into revenue service after maintenance, it's important to do that as soon as possible so it can start making, er revenue again.

There is no revenue from a ferry flight obviously, it is just a price of doing business and you want to get it over with as quick as possible so, to reiterate you can get the jet back in the air with passengers making money Asap.

Bingo- nonstop saved a bunch of time and got it done with a minimum of crew. I'm interested to see how much more (or as some here say, less) fuel would have been burned with a stop.

If you look at the routing flown, the wind optimum routing would have required a significant diversion off route to go anywhere except stopping in NRT.

I doubt that the cost delta between a nonstop versus one stop for this flight was very much and operationally the quicker nonstop flight was obviously preferred by Delta.

There is a huge difference in weight between an aircraft being ferried without pax or cargo and a normal revenue flight. The weight of the extra fuel doesn't impact the fuel efficiency of a light loaded flight as much as a heavily loaded one.

Taken from the Airbus website.....
09 Jan 2003
Qantas has made the longest flight ever by an Airbus A330-200 - nonstop from Toulouse, France, to Melbourne, Australia - covering a distance of almost 17,000 km in a flight time of 20 hours and 4 mins.
The flight is believed to have set two new records in its class ? a distance without landing of 16,910 km, and the fastest speed between Toulouse and Melbourne of 865 Km/hr.
The delivery flight of the brand-new A330-200 was flown by four Qantas pilots, carried 12 people in a fully equipped passenger cabin, and followed normal operating procedures, highlighting the fuel efficiency of Airbus aircraft.
Qantas' A330 left Toulouse on 24th December, landed in Melbourne on Christmas day.

Taken from the Airbus website.....
09 Jan 2003
Qantas has made the longest flight ever by an Airbus A330-200 - nonstop from Toulouse, France, to Melbourne, Australia - covering a distance of almost 17,000 km in a flight time of 20 hours and 4 mins.
The flight is believed to have set two new records in its class ? a distance without landing of 16,910 km, and the fastest speed between Toulouse and Melbourne of 865 Km/hr.
The delivery flight of the brand-new A330-200 was flown by four Qantas pilots, carried 12 people in a fully equipped passenger cabin, and followed normal operating procedures, highlighting the fuel efficiency of Airbus aircraft.
Qantas' A330 left Toulouse on 24th December, landed in Melbourne on Christmas day

Well the aircraft has been in ATL since arriving on May 26; so DL doesn't seem to be in too much of a hurry to get it back flying revenue flights! I wonder what's going on. The first DL A333 to be modded was flying revenue flights within two days of arriving back in ATL!

I'm not an expert in this area, but I believe that the aircraft needs to go through a number of certification checks before it can be returned to service - particularly since this is the first aircraft of this type to complete the modification

Particularly if a new style of seat is used. If any modifications to the galley or water system were made it must pass an FDA check too.

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 34):Thanks, that was the question I was getting at, were the penalties for hauling around extra fuel for ULH > the additional costs of landing/take offs etc.

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 34):Yes but you're having to haul that additional fuel to make the ULH non-stop ferry flight. By breaking up the journey you only need to carry the fuel for that particular leg of the journey

I'm pretty sure DL can factor in all the expenses required for a multiple stop journey. If they decided to do this leg non stop, chances are it's cheaper to do so that way.

I'm no an expert in aircraft fuel consumption rates vs a set amout of fuel on board, but in my head, landing fees, additional ATC navigation fees (which can amount to thousands of dollars per ANSP per flight), combined with the fact that you're burning extra fuel on the climbouts and final appraoches on a multiple leg journey, overall, is more $$$ spent that filling the tanks up and flying non stop on an empty ferry flight.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2013-06-03 06:23:00]

us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!